PROTOCOLS OF MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.R.P.
"critical centralists," such-and-such number of "true centralists," 
such-and-such number of "southern workers," "bolsheviks," etc."
Plekhanov: So you expressed yourself poorly.
(I): Or Comrade Plekhanov listened poorly.
Plekhanov: You have no right to speak, because the session is 
closed...
Council Member Vasiliev.
The exclamation cited on p. 25 
and inserted 
into Martov's speech ("that is incorrect" after Martov's words: "that 
precisely in Russia there is a 'real hell'"), could not have taken place 
in reality, because I remembered this expression perfectly well from 
my own letter. If such an exclamation was indeed made by me, then 
it was probably after some other words of Martov's.
Vasiliev **
Council Members ( 
Lenin 
( Vasiliev
Secretary: I. Olin ***

THIRD SESSION.
[January 30, 1904]
(The same persons are present.)
Plekhanov. We have yet to discuss the details of Comrade Lenin's 
resolution, as well as the question from which we have abstained — the 
question of party literature. In view of the experience of the preceding 
sessions, I submit a proposal either to reduce the speaking time of the 
orators, or else to adopt such an order whereby on each proposal only 
two persons speak — one for and one against the proposal.
Lenin joins the proposal to reduce speaking time and expresses a 
desire to read his dissenting opinion regarding Plekhanov's adopted resolution.
Martov speaks in favor of both of Plekhanov's proposals.
(Both proposals are voted on and adopted unanimously.)
* The numeral has been corrected from the originally written "16". Ed.
** The entire text of the statement is written in the hand of F. V. Lengnik. Ed.
*** All three signatures are in their own hand. Ed.

Plekhanov. So the proposals are adopted. I give the floor to Comrade 
Lenin.
Lenin proceeds to read his dissenting opinion.
During the reading, Chairman Plekhanov, interrupting Lenin, turns 
to the Council with a question: can such a protest * be submitted as, 
judging from the beginning, is a critique of the resolution already 
adopted by the Council? This is not a dissenting opinion, but a critique, 
which ** will undoubtedly provoke a counter-critique, and in this way 
we will deviate from the task before us. I personally find it difficult 
to decide this question and submit it for the Council's consideration.
Lenin (on procedure). In the practice of all congresses, a rule has 
been established whereby those voting have the right to submit their 
dissenting opinions. Of course, every dissenting opinion is by its very 
nature a critique. But this circumstance did not prevent the Second 
Congress from accepting a dissenting opinion from representatives of 
the Bund — an opinion that was the sharpest critique of the congress's 
adopted decision. Our dissenting opinion contains an exposition of the 
motives explaining why we spoke against Comrade Plekhanov's proposal, 
and generally our attitude toward this proposal. It is all the more 
necessary to read this dissenting opinion because at its end there is a 
motivated statement that we are withdrawing our resolution.
Martov believes there can be no obstacles to submitting a dissenting 
opinion.
Plekhanov. I spoke against it because this opening of proceedings 
having the character of critique and counter-critique merely diverts us 
from the order of business. But since the Council speaks in favor of *** 
submitting this dissenting opinion from representatives of the Central 
Committee, I give the floor to Comrade Lenin and propose that he 
continue.
Lenin (reads) **** 31:
* "Protest" has been written in place of the crossed-out: "dissenting opinion". Ed.
** The beginning of this phrase, ending with the word: "which," has been corrected. The 
original version was as follows: "This critique". Ed.
*** The word: "right" has been crossed out. Ed.
**** The following text of the dissenting opinion in the manuscript is written in the hand 
of N. K. Krupskaya and appears to be that very copy of the dissenting opinion which Lenin 
read at this Council session and which was subsequently incorporated directly into the text 
of the protocols. Ed.

PROTOCOLS OF MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.R.P.
2 49

The representatives of the Central Committee in the Council of the Party 
consider it their duty to submit a dissenting opinion on the question of 
Comrade Plekhanov's resolution.
The representatives of the Central Committee are profoundly convinced 
that this resolution will not only not end the party strife that introduces 
a complete factual schism into the party organization, but on the contrary 
will further intensify and inflame it, making it chronic, and will introduce 
further disorganization into the positive work of the party.
This resolution, by its essence, is nothing other than the expression 
of the desire of the minority of the party congress to change the personal 
composition of the Central Committee, whereby the contrary desire of the 
majority of the party congress is ignored.
This resolution, in its essence, is, in our firm conviction, a continuation 
from within the Council of that policy which the opposition has followed 
since the very party congress, and this policy was a policy of boycott, 
disorganization and anarchy for the purpose of achieving a change in the 
composition of the centers, achieving it by a path that does not conform 
to the norms of any properly functioning party life, a path that is now 
condemned by the public opinion of the revolutionary milieu in the form 
of resolutions from the majority of committees.
This resolution expresses the desire that the Central Committee begin 
negotiations with the opposition again. Negotiations have been dragging 
on for more than five months already, introducing complete demoralization 
into the party. The Central Committee has already declared that it has 
said its final word, having agreed on November 25, 1903 to co-opt two 
members as evidence of comradely trust 32. The negotiations have already 
cost enormous sums of money for travel and even more incomparably 
important expenditures of the strength and time of revolutionaries, drawn 
away from their work.
The representatives of the Central Committee do not consider themselves 
entitled now to renew these endless negotiations again, which breed new 
dissatisfaction on both sides, provoke new local grievances, impeding in 
the most terrible manner the positive work.
We draw the most serious attention to the fact that such negotiations 
represent a complete interruption of the proper flow of party life.
We declare that the Central Committee places all responsibility for 
these negotiations on the minority.
We declare that we resolutely and unconditionally see no other means 
of honest and proper resolution of the present party strife, no other means 
of ending this inadmissible struggle over the composition of the centers, 
except the immediate convocation of a party congress.

At the same time, we find that after the adoption of Comrade Plekhanov's 
resolution, our resolution, submitted earlier, is in essence negated and 
becomes completely useless; therefore we withdraw it.
Council Members * N. Lenin
F. Vasiliev **
Martov. In view of the fact that Comrade Lenin's dissenting opinion 
bears *** the character of an accusation against the Council, I ask the 
Council whether I can propose a corresponding resolution in turn.
Plekhanov. You may.
Martov. The discussion of the question 
of pacifying the party 
was prompted 
by representatives of the Central Committee, which, being unable **** to 
put an end to the abnormalities of party life, turned to the Council for 
help. The Council, having heard the opinion of the representatives of the 
Central Committee, adopted a resolution aimed at facilitating the work 
of the Central Committee in the desired direction. After all this ***** 
Comrades Lenin and Vasiliev saw fit to accuse the Council of being an 
instrument of boycott, disorganization, etc. It would be best to submit 
a resolution censuring Comrades Lenin and Vasiliev for the fact that, 
having themselves turned to the Council for help, 
they now come 
forward with accusations 
against it.
* The last paragraph of the text of the dissenting opinion, beginning with the words: 
"At the same time we" and ending with the signature: "Council Members," is written in 
pencil in Lenin's hand. Ed.
** The signatures are authentic. Ed.
*** The word: "bears" in the manuscript is written in place of the crossed-out word before 
it: "has". Ed.
**** The word: "able" in the manuscript is used in place of the crossed-out word before it: 
"in a position." After the word: "able" the word: "it" has been crossed out. Ed.
***** The expression: "After all this" in the manuscript is used in place of the crossed-out 
before it: "Then". Ed.

PROTOCOLS OF MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.R.P.

I propose the following resolution (reads) *:
The Council expresses stern censure of Comrades Lenin and Vasiliev, 
who permitted themselves — after they themselves raised before the 
Council of the Party the question of taking measures to eliminate the 
party conflict — to protest against the resolution adopted by the Council 
on this matter in expressions **, which contain accusations incompatible 
with the dignity of members of this highest party institution, accusing it 
of disorganization of party work. The Council draws the attention of the 
Central Committee to the fact *** that such a statement by its delegates ****, 
made before the Council's resolution was communicated to the Central 
Committee, represents a direct attempt ***** to paralyze the Council's 
efforts to establish peace in the party, and proceeds to current business.
Lenin. I categorically protest against the idea that our dissenting 
opinion contains any accusation directed against the Council. Such an 
interpretation is absolutely incorrect, and Comrade Martov's attempt is 
an encroachment on the freedom of our opinion; his resolution is thus 
unlawful.
Martov. It is strange to speak of the unlawfulness of a resolution, just 
as it would be strange to speak at the beginning of the session about the 
unlawfulness of Comrades Lenin and Vasiliev's 
submission of a dissenting 
opinion. I would be very glad if I had fallen into error in my 
evaluation of the character of the submitted dissenting opinion and if 
there were not those signs there which made me speak about
* The following text of the resolution proposed by Martov in the manuscript is written in 
pencil in Martov's hand and represents that very copy of the resolution which was drawn up 
and read by Martov at this Council session. All corrections in it, specially noted below, 
were made by Martov himself. At the top of the text there is a crossed-out heading: "Martov's 
Resolution Withdrawn." At the beginning of the text the words are crossed out: "Taking into 
account,". Ed.
** The word: "expressions" replaces the crossed-out word before it: "Form". Ed.
*** The words: "to the fact" represent a correction in place of the following series of 
incomplete and crossed-out original formulations: "to the not," "to the conduct of its 
representatives," "to the conduct of its representatives in the Council, and proceeds to 
current business." Ed.
**** "Its delegates" has been corrected from: "delegates of the Central Committee." Ed.
***** The words: "direct attempt" are written in place of the crossed-out words before 
this: "direct violation". Ed.

an insult to the Council, but unfortunately this is not proven. There it 
clearly states regarding Plekhanov's resolution as follows: "This 
resolution in its essence is, in our firm conviction, a continuation 
from within the Council of that policy which the opposition has 
followed since the very party congress, and this policy was a policy 
of boycott, disorganization and anarchy for the purpose of achieving 
a change in the composition of the centers." There cannot be two 
meanings here, and Comrade Plekhanov's resolution is clearly 
characterized as a support of the policy of anarchy and disorganization. 
After that, at the desire of Comrade Lenin, the original order of business 
was changed and the question raised by him concerning the elimination 
of an abnormal state of affairs and the pacification of the party was 
placed on the Council's agenda; after Comrade Plekhanov, going to meet 
the wishes of the Central Committee representatives, proposed a resolution 
recommending co-optation to the Central Committee; after we, in response 
to Comrade Lenin's question about the way out of the abnormal situation, 
replied in good conscience that we saw no other way out except 
co-optation, and when this resolution was adopted by a majority of votes, 
after all this Comrade Lenin accuses the Council of anarchy and 
disorganization.
Plekhanov. I do not approve of the content of the Central Committee's 
protest, but I would hold that Martov's resolution is also unacceptable. 
Martov speaks of accusation against the Council; I, as chairman, would 
violate my duty if I allowed anyone to come forward here with such 
accusations. No one can come forward with accusations against the 
Council, and even the very thought of it is utterly inadmissible. 
I propose to Comrade Martov * to alter his resolution as follows: "The 
Council refuses to understand the conduct of those comrades who, having 
proposed to the Council to express its opinion on the adoption of measures 
to ensure peace in the party, protest against the fact that this opinion 
has been expressed. The Council holds that these comrades would have 
had the right to protest only in the event that it refused to express its 
opinion on the question raised by them." 
The Council is convinced that 
one cannot protest against what it deemed its duty to do, and considers it 
beneath its dignity to reckon with such attempts.
Martov, agreeing with Comrade Plekhanov's opinion, withdraws his 
resolution and then proposes to submit * the following addition to the 
just-proposed resolution of Comrade Plekhanov: 
"As for the words to 
the effect that the resolution adopted by the Council is a 'continuation 
from within the Council of that policy which the opposition has followed 
since the very party congress,' and the characterization of this policy as 
'a policy of boycott, disorganization and anarchy,' the Council considers 
it beneath its dignity to respond to these deplorable words."
(The resolution of Plekhanov with Martov's amendment is put to a vote. 
For: Axelrod, Martov, Plekhanov; Against: Lenin and Vasiliev. The 
resolution is adopted.)
Plekhanov. In view of the fact that the draft resolution proposed by 
Comrade Lenin at the beginning of the 1st session and adopted at the 2nd 
session has been withdrawn by him, and ** no one submits amendments 
to my adopted resolution, then *** I declare **** this resolution adopted 
without amendments. We now have two more questions to discuss: the 
question of convening a congress and the question of coordinating the 
activities of the Central Committee and the Central Organ in the matter 
of distributing party literature.
Lenin. The representatives of the Central Committee would like to 
submit for discussion several minor questions as well, but I petition to 
first place on the agenda the question of convening a congress.
Plekhanov. Your proposal is accepted, and I give you the floor.
Lenin. To the question of convening a congress one can add little more. 
The frightfully difficult state of the party is illustrated by the ***** 
course of discussion in the Council. It has been pointed out more than 
once that at the congress two almost equal halves formed, so that with 
the departure of one from the "majority," complete equality resulted. I do 
not see how this equality could lead to peace without a party congress ******. 
No one doubts that disorder leads to flagrant abnormalities. It must be 
considered an indisputable fact that a combative mood exists on both 
sides.
* The word: "several" has been crossed out. Ed.
** Crossed out: "regarding my." Ed.
*** Crossed out: "Council." Ed.
**** "Declare" is written in place of the crossed-out: "consider". Ed.
***** Crossed out: "as." Ed.
****** The end of the phrase: "to peace without a party congress" has been additionally 
written in pencil in Lenin's hand. Ed.

From the point of view of all these data, one cannot imagine any other 
honest and proper outcome except the convocation of a congress. Comrade 
Martov pointed to technical, financial, and other difficulties for 
implementing my proposal for convening a congress, but the present state 
of affairs is far worse than all these difficulties.
Martov. The question raised by Comrade Lenin is very important; I 
will approach it with full seriousness. 
The Central Organ's editorial 
board does not share the Central Committee's opinion on the significance 
of an extraordinary congress. The unfortunate and disagreeable state of 
affairs is explained by the lack of principled clarification of organizational 
policy. In view of the fact that the protocols of the Second Congress have 
only just been published, the editorial board of the Central Organ believes 
that many comrades have not yet had the opportunity to become familiar 
with the essence and character of the disagreements from which the party 
suffers. The editorial board considers itself fully capable of achieving, 
through illumination of the question in literature, clarity for all comrades 
as to the character and essence of the crisis being experienced, through 
which a more normal development of the organizational conflict will be 
achieved. Therefore the editorial board considers an attempt to cut short 
such a process * of illumination to be extremely harmful, whereas, 
meanwhile, the convocation of an extraordinary 
congress 
would 
inevitably 
halt the development of literary disputes on these questions. As an 
"Iskraist," I remember well how we all regarded the recognition of a 
congress as a panacea when three years ago "Rabochee Delo" put forward 
the slogan of convening a regular congress in the then-existing crisis 33. 
We all found that it was necessary first to achieve full clarity on all 
disputed questions: we all avoided a congress which might end in open 
schism. And only after thorough clarification of disputed questions in 
literature did we begin to prepare for a congress.
The representatives of the Central Committee know how much ideological 
and organizational work was required to convene the Second Congress. If 
one were to approach the convocation of the Third Congress with the same 
seriousness, then in this case the sacrifices and material means that 
would be required from the party would prove to be beyond its present 
capabilities. Of course, these expenditures will perhaps be insignificant 
if we hastily cobble together a congress, hit-or-miss; if we suppose that 
it is sufficient to obtain mandates from the majority of committees, then 
of course a congress is easy to convene, but what kind of congress would 
that be? The experience of the Second Congress confirmed with what 
seriousness and thoroughness one needs to work on preparing a congress, 
and meanwhile, the party has no material means whatsoever. At present 
there exists mistrust by the local committees of the central institutions, 
through which is created * an atmosphere that makes it difficult to 
convene a congress on such bases as would not allow anyone to dispute 
its authority. 
I believe that a congress can only sum up an already 
completed process of development ** and liquidate a completed period, only 
such *** a role for a congress can be considered fruitful. **** 
Therefore I propose 
the following resolution (reads): *****
Taking into account:
1) that the disagreements that developed after and as a result of the 
Second Congress have only begun to be illuminated in party literature;
2) that, therefore, the majority of party members have not yet been able 
to form a clear conception of the character ******* and significance of 
these disagreements and have not even yet had the opportunity to become 
familiar with the protocols of the Second Congress itself;
3) ******** that an extraordinary congress *********, the convocation of which 
is proposed
* Crossed out: "such." Ed.
** The words: "only an already completed process of development" are written in place 
of the crossed-out expression: "a developed process." Ed.
*** The word: "such" in the manuscript is used in place of the crossed-out expression before 
it: "in that case." Ed.
**** In this place in the manuscript the following is crossed out: "To the extent that 
all this is absent, to the extent that literary work has only just begun." Ed.
***** The following text of the resolution in the manuscript is written in pencil in Martov's 
hand and represents that very copy which was drawn up and read by Martov at this Council 
session. All corrections in it have been made by Martov himself. On the back of the sheet 
on which the text of the resolution is written, there is a crossed-out notation in ink in 
the hand of P. N. Lepeshinsky: "Martov's resolution." Ed.
****** Crossed out: "between individual." Ed.
******* The word: "character" has been corrected from the word: "course." Ed.
******** The numeral "3" has been corrected from "4," as this point in the original version 
was fourth. Ed.
********* The expression: "extraordinary congress" is used as the final version in place 
of the following series of crossed-out incomplete original formulations: "the convocation of 
an extraordinary congress," "in order that," "convocation." Ed.

by the representatives of the Central Committee *, would require of the 
party enormous sacrifices on the condition that this congress be arranged 
on the side of fullness and correctness of representation ** just as the 
Second regular congress was arranged;
4) *** that **** in the presence of mutual mistrust between 
separate parts of the party and its central institutions, it would be, in 
general, extremely difficult to organize a congress in such a way that 
the authority of its decisions could not be subjected to doubt;
5) ***** that the possibility of ending the disorganizing results of these 
disagreements by timely, decisive and tactful measures on the part of the 
central institutions of the party has not yet been exhausted,
The Council does not consider it possible to approve the proposal of 
the representatives of the Central Committee for the convocation of a new 
congress, as such a congress, in light of the indicated considerations, 
could not yield the desired results in terms of ****** pacifying the party *******.
To the extent that all this is absent, to the extent that literary work 
for the clarification of the essence of disagreements has only just begun ********, 
I cannot agree with Comrade Lenin when he says that the only honest 
and worthy of a revolutionary way out is the convocation of a congress. 
I would consider it objectively dishonest, i.e., insufficiently well-founded, 
an attempt ********* to shift onto the party, under unfavorable conditions 
for it, the responsibility for the resolution
* The words: "by the representatives of the Central Committee" have been corrected from: 
"by the Central Committee." Further in the manuscript the following is crossed out: 
"would require of the party such." Ed.
** Crossed out: "at the least." Ed.
*** The numeral "4" has been corrected from "5," as this point originally was fifth. Ed.
**** Crossed out: "central institutions." Ed.
***** The numeral "5" has been corrected from "3," as this point earlier stood third. Ed.
****** "In terms of" — a correction in place of the crossed-out: "for." Ed.
******* This concludes the text of Martov's resolution in the manuscript, written in his 
hand. The following text, representing the concluding part of Martov's speech after reading 
his resolution, is recorded, as usual, in ink in the hand of P. N. Lepeshinsky.
******** Crossed out: "That is why." Ed.
********* The words: "well-founded attempt" represent a correction in place of the crossed-
out original formulation: "well-thought-out attempt, which the party's central institutions 
have undertaken." Ed.

of the crisis, responsibility which should be assumed by the central 
institutions of the party.
Lenin. I cannot agree with Martov; he has incorrectly presented the 
tasks of a congress. He says that disagreements have not yet been clarified 
among all comrades, that the convocation of a congress would halt the 
process of demarcation and illumination of the organizational conflict in 
literature. It seems to me that precisely in order to achieve free clarification 
of principled disagreements, it is necessary to eliminate the crisis, to 
clear the atmosphere of intrigues, and for this it is necessary to convene 
a congress. Not to cut short the struggle, but to put it into normal channels *, 
the Third Congress is needed. It is strange even to suggest that a congress 
would cut short principled struggle. 
I will recall the words spoken at 
the Second Congress by the chairman, the meaning of which was that even 
our program is subject to further development and clarification 34; but 
precisely in order that the principled struggle of opinions be successful 
and fruitful **, the very conditions are needed which do not now exist. 
I protest against the historical parallels drawn here and the reference *** 
to "Rabochee Delo." The difference between the present state of affairs 
and what it was three years ago lies in the fact that at that time a unified 
party did not yet exist, but now it already does. Precisely from the point 
of view of those who speak here of a broken-off half, precisely from their 
point of view one cannot protest against a congress for eliminating that 
abnormality which we are not now capable of destroying by our own 
means. Only then will positive work be possible and principled disagreements 
be clarified ****, when the Third Congress eliminates this abnormality and 
puts the struggle of opinions into defined channels.
Plekhanov. ***** In view of the fact that the question of convening 
a congress is of enormous importance, I have formulated my opinion in 
writing ****** and ask Comrades the secretaries to enter it into the protocol 
(reads): "I believe that an immediate convocation of a congress would 
certainly lead to a schism, but a schism cannot be beneficial to the party, 
as it would deal it a mortal blow; it could only delight those who strived 
for it. That is why I am against the immediate convocation of a congress."
Lenin. Comrade Plekhanov has clearly stated a "powerful" argument, 
but an incorrect one. If the Third Congress were to lead to a schism, that 
would mean that there is no desire to submit to the majority, no desire 
to work together, i.e., in fact there is no party among us *. 
Everyone 
recognized that Comrade Travinsky was not unsuccessfully attempting to 
settle the conflict, and there are many comrades like Travinsky, and the 
congress will precisely be a meeting and discussion among such comrades **. 
Desperate struggle, decisive struggle, even full *** of excesses, is not yet 
a schism. If there is a genuine desire to work together, then there must 
be a desire to submit to the will of the majority, i.e., to the congress ****.
Martov. The minority has always spoken of the desirability of joint 
work, while the majority spoke of schism. I agree with Comrade Plekhanov's 
***** opinion 
that a schism is possible if we now convene the Third Congress. 
If one is to believe that a congress should end in a compromise, then one 
should start with that ******. An allusion to the desirability of such an 
agreement was in Comrade Lenin's original statement and draft proposal, 
but the dissenting opinion submitted by him subsequently, after the 
adoption of Comrade Plekhanov's resolution, least of all has the character 
of such
* The text beginning with the words: "that would mean" and ending with the words: "there 
is no party among us" has been written in additionally in pencil in Lenin's hand. Ed.
** The text: "and the congress will precisely be a meeting and discussion among such 
comrades" has been written in additionally in pencil in Lenin's hand. Ed.
*** "Full" is written in place of the crossed-out: "reaching." Ed.
**** The end of the phrase beginning with the words: "must be," has been written in 
additionally in pencil in Lenin's hand; in this text P. N. Lepeshinsky subsequently made 
a correction in ink: the word "and," which in Lenin's version stood after the word "desire," 
has been moved before it. Ed.
***** Crossed out: "of the possibility." Ed.
****** The text: "If one is to believe that a congress should end in a compromise, then 
one should start with that" — is written in place of the following crossed-out original text 
before it: "Lenin expresses confidence that the congress will end in a compromise. My 
resolution foresees this when it says." Ed.

agreement. The editorial board will not assume responsibility for convening 
a congress before exhausting all possible means for pacifying the party. 
The party cannot nurture hopes in the creative role of a congress, and 
the experience of the Second Congress brilliantly confirmed this. Only 
those questions that had been previously discussed and worked out in 
literature were mastered by all congress members, while in the sphere of 
other questions everyone had to grope about. Besides, I must note that 
apart from the representatives of the Central Committee, no statements 
have been received from party members about the necessity of rapid 
convocation of a new Congress.
Plekhanov. Since no one else asks for the floor, considering the 
question clarified, I propose to Comrades Lenin and Martov to formulate 
their resolutions, for which I set a 5-minute break.
Break.
Lenin (after the break). Here is the draft resolution (reads) 33: 
"The Council of the Party, convinced that the central institutions of 
the party are unable to end the absolutely abnormal and disorganizing 
relations within the party that arose after the Second Congress and have 
continued for more than five months, resolves to convene the Third Congress 
of the party."
Martov * reads the resolution he submitted earlier.
(The resolutions are put to a vote in the order of their submission; 
for Lenin's resolution: Lenin and Vasiliev; against: Plekhanov, Axelrod, 
Martov — (rejected); for Martov's resolution: Plekhanov, Axelrod, Martov; 
against: Lenin and Vasiliev (adopted).)
Plekhanov. So, Martov's resolution is adopted. Now I propose to proceed 
to the current business of the publication of party literature.
Martov. The editorial board of the Central Organ has raised this 
question for discussion in view of its urgency and because we will be able 
to work best on pacifying the party if we demonstrate the possibility of a 
most amicable resolution of those particular conflicts that arise between 
the Central Committee and the Central Organ where their functions intersect. 
One such conflict between the Central Committee and the Central Organ 
belongs to the question of publishing party literature. I will not enumerate 
the documents; they are well known to the Central Committee. I will only 
mention the energetic statements received by us from the Central Committee, 
the meaning of which is that if the editorial board does not contribute 
a certain sum of money to the fund, then the Central Committee fears that 
it will not be possible to continue publishing the party organ 36. 
The editorial 
board drew the Central Committee's attention to the fact that any attempt 
on its part to help the central fund by soliciting help from persons who 
could help the party must be paralyzed by such acts on the part of the 
Central Committee agents which make it difficult to collect money, inspiring 
fear in potential donors that the party stands on the eve of a schism 37. 
The editorial board pointed to the systematic lack of information of the 
Central Organ about the Central Committee's activities, and this 
circumstance also makes difficult our appeal to donors. The editorial board 
pointed out that the Central Committee, on the basis of the party statute, 
should provide the editorial board with all means to familiarize itself with 
the state of affairs locally, yet the Central Committee refused to provide 
the editorial board with passes to committees and even * to the Central 
Committee 38. The editorial board pointed out that systematic accusations 
of illegality of its composition, of its provoking disputes about territorial 
prerogatives, all this cannot but affect monetary resources, inasmuch as 
those possessing them lose confidence that the resources will be spent 
productively on the cause for which they are being sacrificed, i.e., on 
the publication of party literature 39. The editorial board's arguments were 
not recognized by the Central Committee as deserving respect. The Central 
Committee answered that if money is not provided, then it will be necessary 
to close the printing press. The reproach thrown at the editors that they 
do not provide access to persons having money is of a very strange sort: 
after all, the Central Committee knows ** the connections with these persons 
***, and thus access to these persons is open to the Central Committee **** 
But this is a minor matter, of course. At the same time the editorial board 
***** is concerned that the literature it edits is not assured of 
distribution. 
There have been cases of refusal to provide party members and 
even committees with literature, and the Central Committee eventually 
agreed to give it only on the conditions on which it is sold to our 
opponents. To cap it all, the editorial board itself is refused copies of 
the editions it publishes. Such complaints make it difficult for the editorial 
board to work 
at 
obtaining monetary resources. The publishing house is 
operating for the time being, but no fruitful results are visible. It would 
be desirable to get a straightforward answer: in what way can the Central 
Committee ensure the regular appearance of the party organ? If the situation 
is such that the Central Committee cannot provide such a guarantee, then 
cannot the Council discuss and work out measures to ensure the publishing 
work of the Central Organ?
Lenin. I will start from the end. Comrade Martov has incorrectly 
understood and presented the Central Committee's letters, especially 
regarding money. He overlooked the fact that these letters are a continuation 
of the conversation which he, Martov, had with Travinsky. Martov himself 
wrote about the content of this conversation in the following terms: "To 
Comrade Travinsky *, as well as to you personally, I mentioned 5—6 
thousand rubles as a presumed minimum of what could be obtained annually 
for the party from those two sources to which members of the editorial 
board have access" 39. 
I declare that Travinsky reported to us about a 
one-time provision of this sum, and not over the course of a year, so there 
is some misunderstanding here. 
The fact is that we counted on these 
5 thousand rubles, and accordingly distributed resources between the 
Russian and foreign fund.
Comrade Martov said that both sources of money (incidentally, how 
incorrectly (in exasperation) the editorial board presents the matter is 
evident from the fact that in letters to the Central Committee Martov 
himself used in quotation marks the words "money bags" and criticized us 
for such an expression. In fact, this expression belongs not to us but to 
Martov) — so Comrade Martov 
said that both sources of money 
are 
known 
to 
us. 
Yes, they are known, but the question is not one of knowledge but of 
accessibility. I know that in a year one source could provide up to 10 
thousand, another up to 40, but that does not help, as they are not 
accessible to me. The conversion of these sources from accessible to 
inaccessible expresses that cutting off of monetary resources which is 
absolutely inadmissible as a method of party struggle.
Besides, there have recently been failures affecting persons who were 
to receive money in Russia. There is no money here, and from Russia it 
will be difficult to receive money soon, and that will cost not merely one 
hundred rubles for sending special agents. Of course, money will still be 
obtained, if there are no further misfortunes, but it will be obtained slowly 
and hardly in fully sufficient quantities.
It is completely false that there were threats in the Central Committee's 
letter. There were no threats, for the Central Committee expressed concern 
all the time about the Central Organ's publishing work. Comrade Vasiliev 
will answer regarding the passes. According to our information, the editorial 
board is sending its agents throughout Russia. This presupposes a separate 
fund of the Central Organ, which means a factual schism of the party. This 
contradicts the statute, which requires complete information for the Central 
Committee and the concentration entirely in its hands of both the entire 
fund and all the organization of practical affairs. The Central Organ 
flagrantly violates this statute, creating its own center of travel and 
agency, its own center of practical guidance and interference in committee 
affairs. Such agency, contradicting the party statute, introduces direct 
disorganization into the work. The Central Committee is unable to answer 
for the proper conduct of affairs and does not answer for it, since disorder 
is introduced systematically by the Central Organ itself. Here are letters 
from Odessa and Baku, which illustrate the state of affairs in this regard. 
From Odessa of December 24 * they write 40: "Yesterday we had Z **, 
who declared that the editorial board sent him as its authorized representative 
with a commission to inform the committees about recent events, about 
negotiations, about the present state of affairs in the editorial board, 
about the editorial board's request to send materials, to contribute, to order 
leaflets or send letters for general leaflets, as well as for brochures, for 
the publication of which a group has been formed. Repeated 41 everything 
old and intensely proved the correctness, nobility and "loyalty" of the 
minority. The committee heard him, asked several questions, asking ***, 
among other things, —
* In the manuscript — a clerical error, — written: "from December 29." Ed.
** "Z" is written in place of the crossed-out: "Zagorsky." Ed.
*** In the manuscript — a clerical error; written: "asked," whereas in the actual letter 
which Lenin read at this Council session it is written: "asking." Ed.

whether he took his mission with the knowledge of the Central Committee, 
to which he, instead of a brief and direct answer: yes or no, began to 
justify himself and prove that the editorial board had full right to appeal 
to committees without the knowledge of the Central Committee. Insisted 
that they immediately discuss what was reported and draw up a resolution, 
to which the Committee replied that it is taking note of what was reported, 
and as for discussion and a resolution, the committee will do this when 
it sees fit, and now proceeds to current business." And here is what is 
said in the letter from Baku of January 1: "Into the Baku Committee came 
Martyn with a report from the Central Organ and the obvious aim of sowing 
distrust in the Central Committee. When at the end he expressed interest 
in learning the Committee's opinion, he was answered: we unconditionally 
trust the Central Committee. 
When he objected that he was interested 
in learning the attitude toward the Central Organ, he was told, without 
mincing words, that after what had just been heard (exposition of his 
mission) trust in him had been shaken 42. — Equally illegal and 
unconspiratorial is what the Central Organ does in making statements 
about the composition of the Central Committee not only to committees 
but also to private individuals (for example, to Druyan, which the Central 
Committee pointed out in a letter to the Central Organ) 43. As for 
"combative relations," the point is precisely that Comrade Martov confuses 
here two completely different things. In the sphere of positive work and 
obtaining resources, combative relations (boycott and so on) are absolutely 
inadmissible, and on the Central Committee's part there have never been 
any. In the sphere of literature, however, "war" is permissible, and no one 
has ever impeded the Central Organ's polemics. Let me remind you that 
even much earlier the Central Committee expressed complete readiness to 
publish both Dana's letters on the opposition's slogans 
and Martov's 
brochure "Once Again in the Minority" 45, despite the fact that both 
things contain attacks on the Central Committee. There has been no 
interruption whatsoever in the Central Organ's publishing work on the 
Central Committee's part. There has not been a single case where the 
Central Committee improperly or with bias distributed literature, where 
it "wronged" minority committees. On the contrary, Travinsky testified 
and proved that minority committees were lavishly supplied earlier than 
all others, and Comrade Martov was forced to acknowledge that in this 
sphere the Central Committee's activities are beyond reproach. As for the 
refusal to supply party literature, the matter stands as follows. Every party 
member without exception (if he inspires trust through his conspiratorial 
reliability, etc.) is given literature free for transport to Russia and delivery 
there to Central Committee agents for distribution. But when there are 
found people who have the audacity to call themselves party members and 
at the same time refuse to turn over literature to Central Committee agents 
for general distribution, then it is understandable that the Central 
Committee is unable (and even lacks the right) to conduct business with 
such people. If these people then purchase literature for their 
disorganizing-to-the-general-work separate artisanal enterprises, then so 
much the worse for them 46.
Martov. First of all I will respond to the question about the 5—6 
thousand rubles. Lenin incorrectly links the inquiry to the editorial board 
with the failure. The approach of the Central Committee to us came much 
earlier than the failure. The failure was at the beginning of January, and 
the first letter from... 47 states: "On the basis of what Comrade Travinsky, 
as he was leaving, told me, that Comrade Martov promised to take 
appropriate steps so that 5 — 6 thousand rubles would be transferred to 
the Central Committee's fund, I consider it my duty to inform the editorial 
board that there is very little money left in the fund." The editorial board 
pointed out that Comrade Travinsky incorrectly conveyed what I had said, 
for I indicated to him the figure of 5 — 6 thousand rubles as a presumed 
minimum by me of what could be obtained on the condition of trust in 
party centers over the course of a year in various sums from certain persons. 
Comrades Vasiliev and Lenin know that I immediately, upon entering the 
editorial board, obtained 1000 rubles for the Central Committee 48. In 
response to Comrade Vasiliev's letter, the editorial board made a point about 
the erroneousness of his view and about how the tactics of Central 
Committee agents and its members, discrediting the Central Organ through 
statements about the illegal character of the editorial board's composition, 
tactics that provoke — I will say here directly — fear that the Central 
Committee is preparing a coup d'état *.
In response to this letter Vasiliev wrote the following: "I ask the 
editorial board to ensure that the money on which the Central Committee 
counted, distributing the money at its disposal between Russia and abroad, 
be transferred to the central fund as soon as possible. Otherwise I cannot 
vouch that it will not be necessary to close the printing press before new 
receipts into the foreign party fund" 49. 
This letter is from January 8 by 
the foreign calendar, i.e., it was written before the failure.
Lenin says that the Central Committee is experiencing difficulties in 
redistributing sums between Russia and abroad. There was already in our 
practice an instance when we stood on the eve of a coup d'état

* — coup. Ed.

PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.R.P.

on the part of the Central Committee, and the fear of repetition of such attempts prevent comrades from giving substantial sums to the central treasury. Whether we interpret correctly or incorrectly the incident involving negotiations about "forgetting" the ultimatum, Lenin himself interpreted it in the sense that "forgetting was considered possible only in the case of the restoration of complete peace." Just so, I, in saying to Travinsky that certain comrades would be able to contribute money, said this on the assumption that peace would be restored and, consequently, all fears of coup d'état would disappear. Now we are being told that if we do not obtain money—which the Central Committee itself impedes—then Iskra will cease publication. The matter of publishing party literature has been put on an incorrect footing. In the Council's resolution it is stated that "the technical side of the publishing enterprise" belongs to the Central Committee.50 Meanwhile the Central Committee has monopolized control over the literature it publishes and does not distribute it to party members and even to the editorial board itself. I do not say that the Central Committee incorrectly distributes among the committees the literature that it transported: I have no data for that. But I cannot fail to see in the Central Committee's actions a striving to cut off certain committees from literature—evident in the facts of refusing to supply it to comrades who were traveling to Russia and requesting a small quantity of literature for the Kiev, Kharkov, and Ekaterinoslav committees. Such refusal has been motivated by the claim that under normal relations everyone should deliver the literature they transported to the Central Committee, not to their own committee; I cannot but call such a fact a manifestation of bureaucratism. There are no normal relations now, and to eliminate the abnormal situation it would be best to go to meet the proposals of the "opposition" committees regarding mutual assistance between them and the Central Committee. After all, those who were leaving offered, in exchange for the right to obtain literature for their committees, to transport an equal quantity to the Central Committee.51 Given the universally known mutual mistrust, it is pure bureaucratism to demand that the committees be the first to abandon the distrust created by the very policy of the Central Committee itself. An even more scandalous fact is the categorical refusal to supply literature to the editorial board. Even bourgeois publishers do not restrict authors in the quantity of copies of their works they are given. I ask: on what basis of the statutes was this refusal given? The policy of comrade Vasiliev was distinguished by the highest degree of evasiveness. The editorial board requested 50 copies of Iskra; the expeditor, in an insolent letter, demanded that it account for where it was disposing of this negligible quantity of copies. To the request to supply an additional 50 copies, the same expeditor refused, and comrade Vasiliev, to whom we then turned,52 remained silent, ignoring our letters, until we forced an answer from him by communicating that until we received his reply we would not respond to his inquiries about money.53 Then he answered us that he would not give us more than 50 copies.54 We proposed—since, by the Council's decision, the number of copies of the publication is determined by agreement between the Central Organ and the Central Committee55—to increase the quantity of the publication by the number of copies we needed, so as not to constrain the Central Committee if it did not have "spare" copies. Silence was his response. Similarly, he replied with silence to the editorial board's demand that it be given the addresses of the committees and even of the Central Committee—a demand flowing from the statutes. Lenin responds to this by saying that, after all, members of the "opposition" and the editorial board's delegates do find the addresses. Yes, but they have to obtain them by "homespun" means. Comrade Lenin raises the question of the legality of the editorial board's delegates' trips; but according to the statutes, the editorial board is given the right not only to know the situation on the ground, but even the personal composition of all organizations. Is this possible if the editorial board is deprived of the possibility of sending its own members or comrades deserving its trust for personal negotiations? Is ideological leadership possible without the absence of personal relations with the directing figures on the ground? In this we see an attempt to cut the editorial board off from the party, an attempt so starkly expressed in the creation of a foreign bureau of the Central Committee not provided for in the statutes. From the congress protocols you can convince yourselves that comrade Glebov, elected to the Central Committee, explained the necessity of providing the editorial board with the possibility of direct relations with the committees by the fact that in case of general failures the new Central Committee would obtain from it surviving connections.56 Now, however, they are creating a new institution that breaks up party centralization, with the special purpose of isolating the editorial board. And our protest on this account is called inappropriate interference in the affairs of the Central Committee, and our attempts to independently find access to the committees are proposed to be stopped by the Council. The letter of Travinsky cited here concerning our letter to the committees surprises me. I do not know if the Central Committee has the text of the entire letter. The editorial board will send you a copy of it and you will see that there are no phrases in it about familial relationships and the entire form of the letter is perfectly proper. The editorial board's principled position is set forth and nothing more. Travinsky's letter shows to what degree the Central Committee is intolerant and suspicious of any criticism. To what degree, under the influence of the Central Committee, hostility toward the editorial board develops, is evident from a fact reported by our authorized representative about his visit to the Odessa Committee: there they doubted whether they were violating the rights of the Central Committee if, in accordance with our request, they were to continue sending the editorial board their publications and correspondence. I cannot agree that the communication to the committees that Lenin is a member of the Central Committee was inappropriate on our part. The disclosure of this fact after his former participation in the editorial board has been disclosed cannot compromise him before the police. And yet the fact of joining the Central Committee is such an important political fact that we cannot hide it from comrades laboring under the false assumption that Lenin has been "removed" from "positive work." To hide this fact would be just as impermissible as to hide the fact of the joining of Akselrod, Zasulich, and Starover to the editorial board of the Central Organ.

**Plekhanov.** Comrade Martov mentioned an insolent letter from the expeditor. I would ask comrade Martov to read the letter.

**Martov.** The comrade expeditor writes... (reads the 1st letter. The letters are not found in the protocols.)

In the 2nd letter he writes... (reads the 2nd letter, which is also not found in the protocols).**

**Lenin.** I simply cannot understand what was insolent in the 1st and 2nd letters of the expeditor. He asks for information important for business accounting, and the editorial board, instead of a comradely answer on the substance of his request—an answer that was never actually given to him—bureaucratically brushes him off. Here I will give an example of a truly insolent letter from the Central Organ's editorial board to the Central Committee. "The Editorial Board of the Central Organ draws the Central Committee's attention to the fact that the presence abroad of three members of the Central Committee, justified by no business considerations and leading to the creation of a new organizational center not provided for by the party statutes, inevitably introduces politicking and disorganization into party life..."57 After all, this is direct abuse (politicking) without a shred of facts and data! The Central Committee answered this: "If the editorial board were not acting in a state of extreme irritation, it would easily see the extreme inappropriateness of its remarks about how many members of the Central Committee are abroad. In response to this and other improper outbursts by the editorial board (such as the absurd reference to some supposedly 'secret' printing), the foreign representative of the Central Committee responds only with a call to remember party duty and to cease actions capable of turning literary polemic into grounds for a split..."58 As for the claim that even bourgeois publishing houses give editors hundreds of copies, I confess I have never heard of this. Let comrade Martov try, if he is not wasting words, to ask Dietz whether he gives Kautsky 400 copies of "Neue Zeit" for distribution, or ask Zinger or Fischer whether Gradnauer requires 200 copies of "Vorwärts" also for distribution by his own means. German Social Democrats understand the difference between anarchy and organization.—The question of money came to a head with the failure, but I, after all, only pointed out a change in the way this question was being posed, caused by the failure.—How the editorial board confuses permissible polemic with impermissible boycott is seen especially vividly from the following: in a letter of January 4,61 answering our inquiry about money, the editorial board, among "conditions that make it difficult for it to conduct propaganda among acquaintances for active support of the Central Committee," mentions this: "agents of the Central Committee and people patronized by them speak threatening phrases at meetings about the illegality of the present composition of the editorial board (about which, incidentally, is also said in the letter of Central Committee member Lenin...)." Look at what a striking distortion of political concepts! The question of whether to provide (or cut off) money sources is combined with the question of polemic in speeches and pamphlets! Is this not a confusion of ideological struggle with localism and squabbles?! The question of approval or disapproval by party members of the composition (and activity) of the editorial board is confused with the question of "legality"! Is this not bureaucratic formalism?! It is natural that the foreign representative of the Central Committee answered this: "...as the representative of the Central Committee, I consider it necessary to point out to the editorial board that there are no grounds for raising the question of legality, etc., on the basis of heated speeches at foreign lectures or on the basis of literary polemic.... If the editorial board discerns attacks upon itself in the polemic, then, after all, it has complete and full opportunity to reply. Is it reasonable to get heated over certain sharp expressions (from the editorial board's point of view) in polemic, when nowhere is there any mention of boycott or any other disloyal (from the Central Committee's point of view) method of action?"...62 Indeed, it is extremely strange to speak of certain "patronized" people.... What does this mean? What sort of bureaucratic language is this? What business does the Central Committee have with speeches at lectures? We have no censorship to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of polemic. Must we not distinguish such struggle from boycott?

The story comrade Martov told about the Odessa Committee (supposedly having asked the Central Committee whether to send letters to the Central Organ) I consider to be a plain joke. One cannot speak of this seriously.

I repeat that the Central Committee has never taken a single action to remove the minority from work. I emphasize that comrade Martov himself admits that he has no facts of improper, one-sided, or biased distribution of literature.

**Vasiliev.** To what comrade Lenin said, I should like to add the following. I never refused to give the editorial board any addresses. The only time someone directly asked me for addresses—this was Blumenfeld in a completely private conversation at a New Year's gathering—I told him that I had only addresses for the Central Committee at my disposal, and I expressed complete willingness to communicate them to the editorial board. But the very next day, January 2 (15), I received a telegram from Russia warning of major arrests connected with the addresses I had, which I therefore could not give to anyone.

**Plekhanov.** I direct a question to the representatives of the Central Committee: how do they view the solution of the question of material difficulties for the unimpeded publication of Iskra?

**Lenin.** I have established the fact of difficulty and propose my draft resolution.

**Martov.** As long as we stand on a formal point of view, the editorial board can answer that it is by no means obligated and does not intend to divert its forces from the literary work entrusted to it by the party* to attracting money to a treasury that the Central Committee is unable to fill. In substance, we have already written and repeat that the mentioned owners of "money sources" here are our party comrades, not "money bags," and we cannot fail to give them an accounting of the situation of the institution to whose treasury we would be inviting them to give money. And it is precisely here that we were hindered by the actions of Central Committee agents, threatening speeches hinting at a split that would be caused by coup d'état on the part of the "majority." At the first steps of entering the editorial board, we, in answer to an inquiry—were we sure that the Central Committee would deliver Iskra to Russia—answered with complete confidence in the Central Committee's loyalty: "yes." But when we saw that the Central Committee was giving literature neither to us nor to practitioners from the "minority," we began to doubt; confidence disappeared from us and from our comrades. We pointed out the inconvenience of three Central Committee members being abroad** because this created a new institution threatening to confuse everything in the party and useful for nothing except to struggle against the Central Organ; it began its activity by depriving the editorial board of half its addresses and connections with Russia. We once more pose to the Central Committee the question: does it intend to coordinate its actions with the Council's decision, which limited its role in publishing to the technical side? Does it intend not to restrict the editorial board in the use of party literature?

**Plekhanov.** I call the attention of comrades to the fact that we have very little time remaining, and therefore I propose that each person speak for no more than 5 minutes.

**Lenin.** Comrade Martov discerned in our actions a threat of a coup. This is ridiculous. [Martov. But the ultimatum?] The Central Committee's "ultimatum" was a reply to Starover's ultimatum. An ultimatum is our last word regarding the conditions acceptable to us for a good peace. That is all. Only a sick imagination could discern a striving for a coup in our reply to the minority, which has undoubtedly brought the party to a split. The majority has nothing to think about concerning a coup. As for the distribution of Iskra, all issues of it were distributed as regularly as possible, and if any committee considered itself "forgotten" in this regard, it would have needed simply to inform the Central Committee about it in a comradely manner. We have received no such communications to this day. The letter of the editorial board to the committees is not a comradely but a military action.—The Central Committee holds the view that the matter of distributing literature should go through one set of hands and a second distribution center is not needed and is harmful. Now a few words regarding the expeditor. I repeat that the expeditor fell into the accused category only because he wanted to conscientiously fulfill his duty and made a business inquiry of the editorial board. The demand that followed—to the effect that the editorial board "not reason!" "submit 100 or 200 copies," and so forth—* bears all the signs of a bureaucratic approach to affairs in its purest form.—Regarding addresses, I will say only that everything belonging to the editorial board was delivered to it. Only personal and organizational correspondence was separated, and the rest was delivered to the editorial board. Furthermore, let me remind you that even in London the old Central Committee formally took all organizational correspondence into its hands. To speak of a new center in view of the fact that Central Committee members are abroad is a plain quibble and bureaucratic interference in the sphere that is subject to the Central Committee's independent management.

**Akselrod.** I wish to note that an answer to the question posed to the Central Committee's representatives has not been received, despite the fact that comrade Plekhanov posed the question directly and formulated it clearly and precisely.

Plekhanov proposes to present the draft resolutions in question.

**Lenin** (reads his draft resolutions). 1) "The Council of the Party requests the editorial board of the Central Organ to take all measures within its power as soon as possible so that the Central Committee may receive, in the very near future, the 5–6 thousand rubles that were the subject of correspondence between the Central Organ and the Central Committee, and which are urgently required at the present moment by the central party treasury in view of the especially urgent circumstances created by the recent failures in Russia." 2) "The Council of the Party considers it incorrect for the editorial board of the Central Organ to send representatives of the editorial board to the committees without the knowledge and consent of the Central Committee, since such a distribution introduces disorganization into the party and completely violates the distribution of functions between the two centers established by the Second Congress." 3) "The Council of the Party considers it incorrect for the editorial board of the Central Organ to communicate to the committees, without the consent of the Central Committee, information about the composition of the Central Committee."

**Martov.** I propose two resolutions (reads):

1) "The Council of the Party recognizes that, in accordance with the party statutes, which oblige all committees to provide the editorial board of the Central Organ with all means for familiarization with the affairs of the organization, no one has the right to prevent the editorial board's authorized representatives from entering into relations with the committees regarding editorial board affairs, whereby the editorial board informs the Central Committee of its authorized representatives."

2) "The Central Committee must provide the editorial board of the Central Organ with such a quantity of party publications as it needs in the interests of their distribution."

* As for comrade Lenin's resolution concerning monetary means, it makes no sense, since everything depends on the good will of the donors, and the editorial board cannot give any guarantees on this account until the relations between the Central Organ and the Central Committee are regulated. It will be written to the donors about this, but one cannot vouch for the success of this appeal.

**Lenin.** Comrade Martov is interpreting the statutes in a completely incorrect way. The awareness of the Central Organ should be complete and comprehensive—as required both by the statutes and by the interests of the cause. But the distribution of authorized representatives for organizational purposes—such as, for example, sending Z to the Odessa Committee without the Central Committee's knowledge—obviously violates the natural distribution of functions between the two central institutions of the party**. It*** is in no way called for by the interests of awareness and introduces only direct disorganization****, completely violating the unity of action****. Such a measure precisely intensifies the chaos in party affairs and in practice means the direct split of the party into two halves—instead of the division of the two central institutions by their functions.

**Martov.** I wish to make a factual correction. Comrade Z, before departing, asked* the Central Committee's representative—comrade Vasiliev—to give him information about the border; but he received a refusal.

**Vasiliev.** This is absolute nonsense. I state as a fact that nothing of the sort occurred.

The Chairman proposes to Vasiliev to avoid sharp expressions.

**Martov.** Comrade Z at least told me this himself.

**Lenin.** This is not correct. No such refusal ever occurred and could not have occurred.

The Chairman (reads 2 resolutions of his own).

1) "The Council, expressing regret that comrade Vasiliev did not communicate the editorial board of the Central Organ the addresses, hopes that in the future this comrade's conduct will be more in accordance with the party statutes."

2) "Although the Council of the Party does not see what harm was done by the communication of the Central Organ's editorial board to the committees of the fact of comrade Lenin's joining the Central Committee, a communication that was caused by and justified by the situation, the Council of the Party invites the editorial board to take** into account in its future relations with the committees the Central Committee's*** displeasure at such communication."

Lenin again reads his 1st**** resolution. (Vote: for—Lenin and Vasiliev, others against—the resolution is rejected.)

**Plekhanov.** Does comrade Lenin find it possible to put to a vote now my 2nd resolution, concerning the same question? With your agreement, I ask that hands be raised...*****

**Martov** (to the point of order). I should like to offer two amendments to Plekhanov's resolution: first, instead of the words "invites the editorial board," put: "considers it necessary that the editorial board"; second, instead of the words: "the Central Committee's displeasure"*** put "the Central Committee's displeasure."

**Plekhanov.** I am amending it according to comrade Martov's amendments (rereads and puts it to a vote). For: Plekhanov, Akselrod, Martov; Lenin and Vasiliev abstain.

**Lenin** (reads his* 2nd resolution, already previously submitted, on the distribution** of the Central Organ's agents). For Lenin's 2nd resolution—Vasiliev and Lenin; against—the others—rejected.

**Martov** reads his 1st resolution. For: Plekhanov, Akselrod, Martov; against—the others—adopted.

**Lenin** reads his 3rd*** resolution.**** For: Lenin and Vasiliev; against—the others—rejected.

**Martov** reads his 2nd resolution regarding the distribution of literature to the Central Organ.

**Plekhanov.** Who is for?

Plekhanov, Akselrod, Martov.

**Plekhanov.** Who is against?

**Lenin.** We consider the adoption of this resolution unlawful.

**Plekhanov.** I ask comrade Lenin not to interrupt me during the voting.

**Lenin.** I ask that my statement be recorded in the protocol.

**Plekhanov.** And I ask that it be recorded in the protocol that comrade Lenin did not fulfill****** the legal requirement of the chairman.

Plekhanov******* rereads his resolution once more with the two amendments from Martov and puts it to a vote. For: Plekhanov, Akselrod, and Martov—against—the others—adopted.

**Plekhanov.** The Council of the Party has expressed its opinion on the causes of the abnormal situation and on the means of eliminating it. The question now arises: should the resolution adopted by the Council be published or not? I believe that this opinion, in accordance with comrade Lenin's views, should be published.

**Lenin** proposes to publish all the protocols in their entirety.

**Plekhanov** reads the proposed resolution:

"The Council finds it necessary to publish its opinion on the question raised at its first meeting by comrade Lenin, namely the question of the present sad state of affairs in the party."

**Lenin** reads his resolution:

"The Council of the Party resolves to publish all the protocols of its meetings."*

**Martov** proposes allowing the central institutions to use the protocols in parts**.

**Plekhanov.** I do not agree with comrade Martov's proposal; it seems to me, in order to avoid misunderstandings, to present such an alternative: either publish the protocols in their entirety or*** not publish them at all. In accordance with the wish and request of comrade Lenin, I, as chairman, have repeatedly reminded the secretaries that everything spoken here must be secret, no one should know what is happening and what is being discussed in the Council; how can one reconcile such a proposal by comrade Lenin with his present proposal about publishing the protocols? I am decidedly against publishing the protocols, since they might be used in an undesirable sense by our enemies—the Socialist Revolutionaries******.

**Lenin.** I can agree with comrade Martov's proposal****** and am even ready to withdraw my resolution.

**Vasiliev.** I agree with comrade Martov's resolution.

**Akselrod.** If we are to print, then print everything, since the publication of the Council's protocols in parts will lead to new polemic.

**Martov.** Indeed, we risk discrediting the content of the protocols if we print them in parts. Therefore I am proposing a new proposal: "Each side has the right to print the Council protocols after they have been approved."

**Plekhanov** puts his resolution to a vote. (For the resolution—Plekhanov, Martov, and Akselrod; against—Lenin and Vasiliev; the resolution is adopted.)

The Martov resolution is put to a vote—for: Lenin, Vasiliev, Martov, and Akselrod; against—Plekhanov. The resolution is adopted.

**Lenin** withdraws his resolution.

**Martov** (to the point of order). I should like to raise for the Council's consideration the question of the replacability of Council members. How do we view the replacement of ourselves by other members?

**Lenin** (to the point of order). Since very little time remains, I would propose to the Council*** not to discuss at this point the question raised by comrade Martov, but to quickly discuss the question which I wish to propose to the Council's attention and regarding which I propose the following resolution: "The Council of the Party considers it incorrect for representatives of the editorial board of the Central Organ to communicate to the secretary of the Central Organ63 a statement by comrade Vasiliev about him, since this statement was made only to the Council members, being part of deliberations within the party's highest institution."

**Martov** (to the point of order). No such letter from the secretary exists, only personal correspondence between the two. Such matters cannot be discussed here, in the Council.

**Lenin.** Martov is speaking to the substance of the question, not to the point of order.

**Plekhanov** proposes to postpone both questions raised (by Martov and Lenin) to the next session of the Council.

**Martov.** My question is more important and I would ask for it to be discussed immediately.

**Plekhanov** again proposes to place these questions on the agenda for the next session of the Council and puts to a vote the question of ending the meeting. The majority votes for ending. The Chairman declares the meeting closed.

N. Lenin
Council Members
Vasiliev
Secretary I. Olin*

concerning the form and quantity of the publication being issued, as well as the time of its appearance, the representative of the Cen. Com. acts by agreement with the representative of the Cen. Org." (*Lenin Collected Works*, Vol. VII, document 108, p. 282).

56 In the *Protocols of the Second Congress of the RSDLP* this statement by V. A. Noskov ("Glebov") is recorded as follows: "Glebov defends the right of the editorial board of the Central Organ to know directly the personal composition of local committees. In case of the collapse of the entire Central Committee, it will be known who can replace them..." Moreover, the editorial board of the Central Organ needs to know everything in order to have a clear picture of the forces and the state of affairs" (*Protocols*, Leningrad, 1924, p. 254).

57 Here V. I. Lenin was citing the end of the letter—a resolution of the editorial board addressed to the Cen. Com. of 22 December 1903, which is printed above (document 141, pp. 91–92).

58 See above the letter of the foreign representative of the Cen. Com. of 27 December 1903 in reply to the aforementioned resolution of the editorial board of the Cen. Org. of 22 December (document 143, p. 98).

59 *Neue Zeit* (*New Times*) — the scientific organ of German Social-Democracy, founded in 1883 by K. Kautsky and edited by him until 1917; subsequently the editor of the journal was G. Cunow; the journal covered questions of socialism, philosophy, and political economy; publication of the journal ceased in 1923.

60 *Vorwärts* (*Forward*) — the central organ of German Social-Democracy, began publication under the editorship of W. Liebknecht and Hasenclever in 1876 in place of *Volksstaat* (*The People's State*), which had been published since 1869, was suspended during the era of the exceptional law against socialists (in place of *Vorwärts*, *Social-Democrat* was published in Switzerland), resumed publication from 1 January 1891; being the organ of German Social-Democracy, which officially stood at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century on the basis of orthodox Marxism, *Vorwärts* at the same time gave space on its pages to articles by revisionists.

61 See above document 152, pp. 125–126.

62 See above document 154, p. 131.

63 Secretary of the Cen. Org. — I. S. Blumenfeld. It has not been clarified which specific review of him by F. V. Lengnik is being referred to here.